Kasparov's theory of History?

The "Matrix" have the premise that everything we know is just a dream made up by a computer. Who is to say if thats true or not.

me, Its not true, we live here in the now, else how would we be allowed to think like we do

I saw a documentary on Kasparov that talked a little about this subject. They made the claim that Kasparov has never forgotten any date or phone number he has ever seen or heard. In that context, it would make sense that he would propose a model of history that takes into account the unresolved problems of inaccurate dates. Somebody mentioned earlier that it's basically Fomenko's idea that he is subscribing to which is confirmed by the documentary. He basically believes that all of ancient history was fabricated in the 17th century. Unfortunately, the part of the documentary where he is arguing his ideas on the subject was not translated into English or I would be able to provide some more insight.

On the entire "Is the external world real or not," I've always been of the opinion that it's irrelevant.  Even if there's no real external world, we experience it as if it was real, and thus, I feel that it becomes a reality on its own terms.

And personally, as to the Kasparov-Taylor interview, I really, really don't buy it.  To me, it strikes me as a sort of conspiracy theory about the past, and raises many more questions than it answers. If there wasn't a Roman Empire or Greek civilization, then when, and how, were all their ruins constructed?  Just looking at Italy for a moment: it wasn't even unified until the later 19th century, so what was the mechanism by which this reconstruction was so uniformally directed?  Just looking at Europe in general, centralized state building doesn't really come into being until after the 30 years war.  Why is it that Romantic languages are so prevalent across what had been the Western Roman Empire?  We could extend it further back, let's say to Egypt.  When were those ruins constructed, and how were the hieroglyphic systems invented, and why?  For that matter, what about all the other writing systems that we are aware of, and all of the other cultural artifacts?  When thinking about the implications, it strikes me as ludicrous that there could be some kind of invention of antiquity.

It seems to be easier to state that the cultures of antiquity were qualitatively different, at a wide range of levels, then those societies that followed them.  Just as, likewise, modern western culture is qualitatively different, in terms of values, technology, social structures, cosmology, living conditions, etc. then that in the Early Modern periodization.  One sees the remnaints of the past upon the present, but, at an essential level, the past tends to become an alien place the further you look into it.  With this in mind, I don't see how he can judge and appraise Rome through 15th century standards or through modern standards, which is exactly what he does.  And because he does so, therefore, of course it doesn't make sense, because the past cannot be understood through such a lens.

 Yeah... sounds like he was a bit of a nutjob at the time of that interview. But hey, a lot of people have had weird ideas from time to time. You know, pyramids couldn't be built without extraterestrial help because--basically--I don't know how to build one and I'm not in the mood to really try to find out. I mean, it's impossible, right?